Because the phones that currently include NFC are either only available in Japan or form a tiny portion of the market, and you can't actually use it for much anyway?
Apple including it in the new iPhone would mean that there would be tens of millions of the things around, and Apple isn't known for including features in their devices that you can't use.
No, it's more a matter of space expanding. The 13.2 billion light years figure is how far a photon arriving at our galaxy had to travel. The 45 billion light years figure is how far a photon leaving now would have to travel, if the universe weren't expanding. Another, even bigger value, would be how far a photon leaving now would have to travel with the expansion of the universe at it's current rate (i.e. if we wanted to go there, how far would we have to go?).
All these measurements are in the frame of reference of either our galaxy or the other one. No other frame of reference really makes sense.
Because nobody uses a real supercomputer for that kind of work. It's much cheaper to buy some processing from Amazon or use a loosely coupled cluster, or write an @Home style app.
Supercomputers are used for tasks where fast communication between processors is important, and distributed systems don't work for these tasks.
So the answer to your question is that tasks that are appropriate for distributed computing are already done that way (and when lots of people are willing to volunteer, why would they pay you?).
1. Cameras. I hear they're even considering making them mandatory in the US. Even without, you don't actually need to see out the back window. I learned to drive in a full size van and yeah, it has rear windows, but you can't see squat out of them, even if there's nothing in the back (which there always was).
I lived in Alberta for most of my life. A pickup isn't the ideal vehicle. Pickups, even four wheel drive ones, usually have very light rear ends. That means they slip. Slipping in the winter isn't good. If you do own a pickup, about all you can do is pile weight in the box.
Strangely, the ideal vehicle seems to be one of the minivans with decent ground clearance. The things are great on ice. A close second is a small car with good ground clearance. I had a '92 Grand Am that could make it over things that stopped a Jeep SUV.
How is km/L more convenient? I generally know how far I want to go, and want to know how much gas (or how much money) it will take to get me there. I don't think I know anyone who sets out to burn a particular amount of gas and wants to know how far he has to drive to do so. Suppose my commute is 50 km and my car averages 10 L / 100 km. By multiplying 50 km * 10 L / 100 km I know that my commute will burn 5 L and, at current gas prices here, will cost me about $7.50.
Now try it the other way... my commute is 50 km but my car gets 10 km / L. Okay, first I have to find the reciprocal of 10 km / L, which is 1/10 L / km... which is where I started with the previous example, minus the factor of 100 to make the number prettier.
L/km (or L/100 km for more convenient numbers) is actually a measure of consumption. MPG and km/L are not. This has other effects. L/km makes comparisons among vehicles with different fuel consumptions easier. If one vehicle uses 20 L / 100 km, another that's $5000 more uses 10 L / 100 km and another that's $10000 more uses 5 L / 100 km, if I'm only concerned about total cost, is it worth buying the third car or should I stick with the second? It's easy to see that my first $5000 gets me a big difference (10 L / 100 km) but my second $5000 gets me only half the improvement (5 L / 100 km).
The same figures in km / L look like this: 5 km / L, 10 km / L and 20 km / L. By those numbers it looks like the second car (an extra 5 km / L for my $5000) isn't such a good deal, but the third (an extra 10 km / L) is.
So which is it? Suppose I drive an average of 10000 km / year and gas is a nice even $1 / L. The first car will use 2000 L and cost me $2000. The second 1000 L and cost $1000. The third 500 L and cost me $500. So my $5000 for the second car over the first saves me $1000 a year while my extra $5000 for the third car over the second saves me only $500 / yr. Intuition using the L / 100 km values came up with the right answer, NOT the km / L values. Actual consumption values are much more useful, less misleading, and are not just used in Europe but also Canada and many other places. I've seen lots of people here suggest that they should be used in the US as well.
Or Skype over the cellular data connection. I'm not really sure why you'd want to use the voice channel. Too bad the cell companies still insist on charging you for it.
Um, your package manager is local to your box? Where do you suppose it finds all those packages? Unless you're pointing it at a CD, which nobody actually does, and you probably shouldn't either because you'll be getting old versions.
Ah, another article by a Wired editor (at least this one has some basic scientific education) sexing up the old "a lot of scientists are crap at stats" thing into an angsty article about how "science" is flawed and how do we know what to believe? Add in a good dose of Roland, er, Hugh sensationalization (nature is giving different results!!11! And you've got a winner.
Here's how it works - a lot of scientists are crap at statistics, particularly in the squishier sciences, where rigorous stats are more important. MOST published studies are really exploratory - they might show some interesting results but those results came after so many comparisons the p-value is NOT a p-value. These studies are valuable, as they point out interesting things to look at further, but they're not "truth." And finally, drug companies, surprise, surprise, have a vested interest in making their expensive investments look good, even if it means bending some silly statistical rules a little.
Sounds like the DDOSers aren't hiding their identities particularly well. Probably not as well as someone at a physical protest. And some of them most certainly are getting hauled away by the cops, even though there has been no violence.
Legal protest, hey? That's right, the US has protest zones now hey?
You have an odd definition of completely different. There are a couple of little differences you've identified, half of which are wishful thinking (not being identifiable? Seriously?).
I do agree though, protest DDOS should be performed with protestors constantly clicking refresh.
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
There is a difference between a control used only to monitor natural progression and variation, and a placebo control, used to also correct for the placebo effect.
There have been trials that include both a control arm (no treatment) and a placebo controlled arm (placebo treatment). The placebo effect is real and it has quantitative effects.
Not self delusion. It was believed that the success of placebos depended upon how well someone else could delude you. This study suggests that self-delusion is adequate, at least for some people.
You're wrong. The placebo effect has been documented many, many times to have real, objectively measurable effects in real, objectively measurable diseases. If it didn't you wouldn't need to have placebo arms in trials of treatments for cancer, heart attack, multiple sclerosis, etc.
Note that you don't normally use placebo arms in modern clinical trials for big name diseases because you instead test against the existing standard of care, but trials of the first treatments for something are indeed done against placebo because there is indeed an effect.
It sounds like they showed a meta-placebo effect. If your patients believe in the placebo effect (they even gave them some mind-body catch phrases to latch onto) then they'll believe a "placebo treatment" will make them better. From there you're back to classic placebo effect.
It would be interesting to replicate the study but tell patients flat out - "this is a sugar pill and doesn't have any chance whatsoever of making you better."
Lying to your patient is ethically questionable. It is a good thing not to give patients useless treatments, and it may well be a good thing to give them a placebo that will help them, but it is nevertheless ethically questionable to lie to them.
I believe the relevant phrase is "the ends don't justify the means."
There are very convincing theoretical reasons why DTI can never resolve individual axons, at least not in a non-cryogenic sample. If you want to look at individual axons you're far better off doing it the old fashioned (and considerably less sexy) way: with a microscope.
Slashdot Mirror
Because the phones that currently include NFC are either only available in Japan or form a tiny portion of the market, and you can't actually use it for much anyway?
Apple including it in the new iPhone would mean that there would be tens of millions of the things around, and Apple isn't known for including features in their devices that you can't use.
No, it's more a matter of space expanding. The 13.2 billion light years figure is how far a photon arriving at our galaxy had to travel. The 45 billion light years figure is how far a photon leaving now would have to travel, if the universe weren't expanding. Another, even bigger value, would be how far a photon leaving now would have to travel with the expansion of the universe at it's current rate (i.e. if we wanted to go there, how far would we have to go?).
All these measurements are in the frame of reference of either our galaxy or the other one. No other frame of reference really makes sense.
Because nobody uses a real supercomputer for that kind of work. It's much cheaper to buy some processing from Amazon or use a loosely coupled cluster, or write an @Home style app.
Supercomputers are used for tasks where fast communication between processors is important, and distributed systems don't work for these tasks.
So the answer to your question is that tasks that are appropriate for distributed computing are already done that way (and when lots of people are willing to volunteer, why would they pay you?).
1. Cameras. I hear they're even considering making them mandatory in the US. Even without, you don't actually need to see out the back window. I learned to drive in a full size van and yeah, it has rear windows, but you can't see squat out of them, even if there's nothing in the back (which there always was).
2. Yes, there must be.
I lived in Alberta for most of my life. A pickup isn't the ideal vehicle. Pickups, even four wheel drive ones, usually have very light rear ends. That means they slip. Slipping in the winter isn't good. If you do own a pickup, about all you can do is pile weight in the box.
Strangely, the ideal vehicle seems to be one of the minivans with decent ground clearance. The things are great on ice. A close second is a small car with good ground clearance. I had a '92 Grand Am that could make it over things that stopped a Jeep SUV.
How is km/L more convenient? I generally know how far I want to go, and want to know how much gas (or how much money) it will take to get me there. I don't think I know anyone who sets out to burn a particular amount of gas and wants to know how far he has to drive to do so. Suppose my commute is 50 km and my car averages 10 L / 100 km. By multiplying 50 km * 10 L / 100 km I know that my commute will burn 5 L and, at current gas prices here, will cost me about $7.50.
Now try it the other way... my commute is 50 km but my car gets 10 km / L. Okay, first I have to find the reciprocal of 10 km / L, which is 1/10 L / km... which is where I started with the previous example, minus the factor of 100 to make the number prettier.
L/km (or L/100 km for more convenient numbers) is actually a measure of consumption. MPG and km/L are not. This has other effects. L/km makes comparisons among vehicles with different fuel consumptions easier. If one vehicle uses 20 L / 100 km, another that's $5000 more uses 10 L / 100 km and another that's $10000 more uses 5 L / 100 km, if I'm only concerned about total cost, is it worth buying the third car or should I stick with the second? It's easy to see that my first $5000 gets me a big difference (10 L / 100 km) but my second $5000 gets me only half the improvement (5 L / 100 km).
The same figures in km / L look like this: 5 km / L, 10 km / L and 20 km / L. By those numbers it looks like the second car (an extra 5 km / L for my $5000) isn't such a good deal, but the third (an extra 10 km / L) is.
So which is it? Suppose I drive an average of 10000 km / year and gas is a nice even $1 / L. The first car will use 2000 L and cost me $2000. The second 1000 L and cost $1000. The third 500 L and cost me $500. So my $5000 for the second car over the first saves me $1000 a year while my extra $5000 for the third car over the second saves me only $500 / yr. Intuition using the L / 100 km values came up with the right answer, NOT the km / L values. Actual consumption values are much more useful, less misleading, and are not just used in Europe but also Canada and many other places. I've seen lots of people here suggest that they should be used in the US as well.
"Checking in" to a store or restaurant is already an ad that is distributed to all your friends.
Strangely, not all fusion processes produce free neutrons.
I'm not sure how you get a heavier element from two lighter ones by encouraging nuclear decay.
Black holes can "die extremely quickly." BIG ones can't.
Since we're striving for accuracy and all.
Image analysis counts as AI under the more generous definitions. Learning counts under most definitions.
Creating is easy. There are lots of programs that "create" music, or art, or whatever.
Or Skype over the cellular data connection. I'm not really sure why you'd want to use the voice channel. Too bad the cell companies still insist on charging you for it.
Can we get a warning system to warn us when you're watching your warning system instead of the road?
Now now, it's just barely possible he's too cheap to spend $25 on memory.
Um, your package manager is local to your box? Where do you suppose it finds all those packages? Unless you're pointing it at a CD, which nobody actually does, and you probably shouldn't either because you'll be getting old versions.
Ah, another article by a Wired editor (at least this one has some basic scientific education) sexing up the old "a lot of scientists are crap at stats" thing into an angsty article about how "science" is flawed and how do we know what to believe? Add in a good dose of Roland, er, Hugh sensationalization (nature is giving different results!!11! And you've got a winner.
Here's how it works - a lot of scientists are crap at statistics, particularly in the squishier sciences, where rigorous stats are more important. MOST published studies are really exploratory - they might show some interesting results but those results came after so many comparisons the p-value is NOT a p-value. These studies are valuable, as they point out interesting things to look at further, but they're not "truth." And finally, drug companies, surprise, surprise, have a vested interest in making their expensive investments look good, even if it means bending some silly statistical rules a little.
Sounds like the DDOSers aren't hiding their identities particularly well. Probably not as well as someone at a physical protest. And some of them most certainly are getting hauled away by the cops, even though there has been no violence.
Legal protest, hey? That's right, the US has protest zones now hey?
You have an odd definition of completely different. There are a couple of little differences you've identified, half of which are wishful thinking (not being identifiable? Seriously?).
I do agree though, protest DDOS should be performed with protestors constantly clicking refresh.
Yeah, because it's completely different than regular, old fashioned physical protests where a bunch of people march through the street, blocking traffic, the entrances to businesses and inconveniencing lots of other people in order to get attention.
There is a difference between a control used only to monitor natural progression and variation, and a placebo control, used to also correct for the placebo effect.
There have been trials that include both a control arm (no treatment) and a placebo controlled arm (placebo treatment). The placebo effect is real and it has quantitative effects.
Not self delusion. It was believed that the success of placebos depended upon how well someone else could delude you. This study suggests that self-delusion is adequate, at least for some people.
You're wrong. The placebo effect has been documented many, many times to have real, objectively measurable effects in real, objectively measurable diseases. If it didn't you wouldn't need to have placebo arms in trials of treatments for cancer, heart attack, multiple sclerosis, etc.
Note that you don't normally use placebo arms in modern clinical trials for big name diseases because you instead test against the existing standard of care, but trials of the first treatments for something are indeed done against placebo because there is indeed an effect.
It sounds like they showed a meta-placebo effect. If your patients believe in the placebo effect (they even gave them some mind-body catch phrases to latch onto) then they'll believe a "placebo treatment" will make them better. From there you're back to classic placebo effect.
It would be interesting to replicate the study but tell patients flat out - "this is a sugar pill and doesn't have any chance whatsoever of making you better."
Lying to your patient is ethically questionable. It is a good thing not to give patients useless treatments, and it may well be a good thing to give them a placebo that will help them, but it is nevertheless ethically questionable to lie to them.
I believe the relevant phrase is "the ends don't justify the means."
There are very convincing theoretical reasons why DTI can never resolve individual axons, at least not in a non-cryogenic sample. If you want to look at individual axons you're far better off doing it the old fashioned (and considerably less sexy) way: with a microscope.